Travis County Commissioners Court
February 27, 2007
Item 7
7. Consider and take appropriate action on the following items for the design-build project at the Travis County correctional complex: 1. An updated project budget; b negotiation for design-build phase services with hok, design-build consultant; and c, request for a bond-funded project inspector in the facilities management department. We do have a couple of other items in 89 that I will call up after I complete 7.
>> yes, sir, good morning, alicia perez executive manager for administrative operations. As the judge stated we are going to discuss 7 today. That is to provide an update to the court on the project budget for the construction project at the Travis County correctional complex at del valle. We provided backup to you. There are two large sheets budget a and b, the only difference in the budgets is the amount of the contingency. The owner's contingency and project budget a is 4.5% and project budget b it is 3% contingency for the project. If you would go to those sheets, I will just -- I just kind of want to cover them quickly, then we will answer any questions that you may have. I just want to let the court know that we do have ed splinter here with hok who has been our consultant on this project. Ken geddy a project manager. Roger el khoury the director for facilities management and cyd grimes on any procurement issues and then
>> [indiscernible] when we get to the contract the county attorney's office will be able to answer those questions. But what you have -- just look at project a, you have a macro summary of what the construction will be. The primary component of this is the contract that we will discuss later on. What we have done is we have provided in green, the column in green is the original budget, which was adopted right around September of '05. In -- in July of '06, hok brought forth a revised cost estimate. And then the current cost is what you will see as part of the contract and the -- the other costs for the project. And then the difference is in the yellow column. But the project will construct -- 1,336 beds out at del valle. Another 48 beds converted from various beds into permanent beds that meet jail standards. You then have owners costs which include furniture, fixtures and equipment, testing and inspections. And then you see the owners contingency. And in budget a it is 4.5% for total of about 2.9, a little bit over 2.9 million in project b or in budget b that amount is 3%. At 1.970 or about 2 million. You then go to the f.m. Administrative costs, there is funding in that line item for hok design build phase services. And then the bond inspector which we are also requesting today. The total on budget, project budget a is 71,543,775. The original budget that was brought to the court in September of '05 totaled 63,750,000. So -- so we require an additional 7,793,775. If -- if budget a is adopted. If budget b is adopted it comes out to about 7 million. So 8 million in one and 7 in the other. About a million dollars difference in the budgets. It has to do with the contingency. That covers the budget. We had discussed -- briefed some members of the court and discussed the difference or the importance in the difference in maintaining a 4.5% contingency, which is what was recommended in the original budget or cutting it down to 3% contingency and we asked for a -- our consultant to comment on that.
>> when we recommend a contingency, it's to cover a number of items that potentially can come up in the construction process. I think most consultants would -- would be as prudent as possible with -- with recommending to their client or the owner of the project to be prepared for contingencies. The 4.5% is not as large of a contingency as one might look at on some projects. It's a -- it's a reasonable, prudent, contingency for a project in this procurement methodology. I think all of us on the whole team will try to bring this project in without using the contingency or with only using the -- the most amenable components. But I think that it's before you dents for us as professionals to recommend to you to consider a -- a contingency of the proper size and magnitude. The difference between 3% and 4.5% is -- is just a -- an issue of -- of how secure do you want to be, what -- what extra insurance, what -- what elements you want to consider when you adopt that contingency. My opinion is that you are safer with a four and a half percent, but if you choose to go with the 3%, that's our Marching orders and -- and we work to -- to stay within that.
>> > you know, we have looked at trying to get some type of a cost estimation built into a lot of projects, in fact we have looked at -- during our budget cycle we looked at the possibility of getting on board a cost estimator to look at unforeseen costs that impacts the cost of projects in Travis County. With your contingency that you have, 3%, 4% whatever you have got built in here, does that take into consideration the cost escalation factor of -- tell me what is that based on, what is included, that's my question.
>> right. The cost escalation in a proper sciewrment process like we are -- procurement process like we are using here, really the burden of price escalation for the most part is borne by the design-build contractor. They are in their budget anticipating what they will have to buy a product for six months from now, 12 months from now. And that's factored in the way they put their cost estimate together. They get prices from their subcontractors and materials suppliers based on the anticipated delivery date or installation date of the project. So most of that -- most of that responsibility is borne by the contractor. The contingency normally in construction is anticipated to cover three areas, one is errors and omissions in the document package, two would be unforeseen conditions. And three are -- unforeseen events and conditions. And the third would be changes that would direct it or defined by the owner in the process.
>> give me an example of the -- of each.
>> okay. Errors and omissions usually are conflicts between the architects and engineers and the contractor. Where something was not defined in every component of the document. It may have been included on a page in the specification, but it was omitted from a plan or a wall section or an elevation. Window might be shown six feet high on one sheet and five feet high on the other sheet. The contractor would maintain when he did his pricing, he based it on a five foot window. And we would say, well, he should have anticipated a 6th. There's a conflict and a negotiation in the -- and the contractor may be successful in getting additional money based on inconsistencies or errors or omissions in the documents. In the design build methodology, to a great extent, that issue is taken off the table. Because we are asking the design build contractor to be the soul contractual responsible party for both the design and construction sole responsibility party. If his engineer failed to alert him in some method, whether it was a drawing, a spec, a note on the back of a bus ticket that he needed to put widgets in the building, that's his problem, he has to deal with that. His alternatives of recovering costs from his consultants or whatever. It's his problem. The Commissioner has a -- the commission has a contract to build the building with the design builtents tee. The other two you don't take off the table in this methodology. Unforeseen conditions, we had a project recently in new mexico that there was a hailstorm shortly before opening the building, substantial amount of roof top mechanical equipment was damaged. And the roof was damaged. The owner had certain protective insurances, but there was a gap between the builders risk, the owner's protective and what the actual cost they incurred in -- in the remedy of that situation. That hailstones was an unforeseen condition. Frequently unforeseen conditions arise out of conditions found in the site and foundation work or excavation. You could discover ground water or quick sand or whatever that wasn't reveal understand the geotechnical reports that you got. You do soil borings to investigate that. But there is a possibility of some unknown situations. A very common one in this part of the country is -- comes under historical artifacts, you find in burial grounds. Nobody knew they were there and you have to work around that. And that's an unforeseen condition. Those are few and far between. But they -- they do happen. The other thing are owner changes. Owner changes fall into two or three categories. One is the owner may not have anticipated a certain need that -- that comes to life during the process. One thing would be right now we don't have any padded cells in this unit. Because it's anticipated that inmates that need that level of protective custody are somewhere else. Operationally that may change. The beds that they are using now may not be available a year from now and the owner may want to add padding in some cells that we have. That's just an off the wall example. But another one that -- that does come up on projects is -- is we are -- where the issue deals with a value enhancement. There's several on this project that have been in discussion and on the table where -- where a product might be substituted that's more expensive initially, but has a definite provable life cycle cost advantage to the county. 10 years ago, nobody anticipated energy costs to be where they are now. It's becoming much more critical in the selection of air conditioning equipment, all kinds of mechanical devices to the energy -- to be energy efficient. But sometimes you pay a little bit more for that. We have gone through a lot of those elements in the design process. But a supplier may offer a substitution that is very attractive as a better value to the county, where we may a few dollars up front additional but the long-term pay back is substantial. The type of roof thank we use when we did the bridging documents, we -- we balanced almost every decision we made based on -- based on living within the budget and getting the best product. We may find that -- that we are offered a -- a higher quality roof and not -- not meaning it keeps water out or not any differently, but the life expectancy of the product and the amount of maintenance that has to be done in the cycle of the roof reduces our operation and maintenance budget. We would consider that and make a recommendation to either accept those kinds of changes. But those are owner driven issues, the owner has substantial control over that. And -- and facilities management, the sheriff's department, the purchasing, look at these things as to what's the best value for the county. And that's -- that's the primary areas.
>> so -- so we were told that -- that about one-fourth of the project was designed before we went out for bid. Weren't we?
>> to be clear about it, the whole project was designed but every detail of every element wasn't chosen.
>> okay.
>> and that's part of this --
>> one-fourth of the details were in there.
>> that would be it.
>> we were told when we open the bids and evaluated them that faulkner designed about another one-fourth. That's one-half.
>> okay.
>> those are softballs. Where I?m heading is if in fact we have designed roughly one-half, should there be that many owner changes that come up? Especially with respect to quality of different stuff. Now I can understand if the sheriff comes in and says hey we are building this number of minimum security beds, really we need maximum security and it's early enough to -- to redesign. Then we may have to pick up additional costs to design and build. That's a conscious decision that we make at that point. Would you normally fund a contingency to deal with something that major, though? I?m sitting there thinking if errors and emissions are the contractors problem because this is design build, we can't do anything about unforeseen conditions especially acts of god, the examples that you gave, we just have to live with that. But we got a $2 million cushion to help out. Owner changes we really ought to be able to control. I don't know to what extent the sheriff has been involved, but at some time we have to give the call, hey, we are finishing our design. Here's what we have. And here's your deadline to -- to recommend any changes. Not that they will all be done, here's your deadline to recommend, after that deadline basically you have missed your opportunity. Why would we leave the window open forever. We had this problem last time. Some officials came in after the fact. We ended up doing a whole lot of additional work because we were changing things that we could have designed their way had they come earlier. I guess on the one hand the -- the heftier the contingency, it seems to me the -- the more others will interpret that to mean whenever I make up my mind about -- about what changes I want, I just go in and make them because the money is there. The other thing is from the governmental entity perspective, if something -- if there was an act of god that caused an unexpected $2.5 million, costs an unexpected $2.5 million that we have to come up with it. I don't know if we have to come up with it anyway, I don't know that we gain that much by having it in the contingency there. I?m not -- I mean, you and I are in agreement on the contingencies and circumstances under which they occur. I guess I?m just having a hard time setting aside $3 million, where $2 million may meet our needs.
>> I understand, judge, where you are coming from on that.
>> not a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of things. But it seems to me that it does send the message. If we are designing at the end of that design it looks like because of what we want additional stuff, we need to increase the -- the contingency from 2 million to something else, I would rather do it at that time than --
>> judge, if I can respond to that, by no means -- and I speak for the group -- are any of us proposing that that money is a slush fund to buy bells and whistle that's haven't been planned for now. The component of owner changes, though, does come up in the projects and doesn't mean that the sheriff's department has wanted something extra. It might mean that there's a change in technology, especially in detention control and surveillance equipment. A couple of years ago, all of our projects were designed wiring and all of a sudden fiberoptics is available. And a lot of projects in the middle of construction he were enhanced incorporating fiberoptic technology because it was faster and better. Those things happen. Right now the control systems are using what we think today is the state-of-the-art product. A year from now it's a different kind of touch screen or something else that has an operational advantage, going to be available. It may. But the decision for evaluating each one of those should -- should be strictly and solely is that of bert value to the county -- of better value to the county. Does the county get more bang for its buck.
>> if we say yes, we ought to pay for it.
>> yes, sir.
>> this is about, there are certain things that the contractor is responsible for that will be covered with the $65 million. If we later want to make changes that cost additional money, we have to pay for those. So if -- where should that money come from? Should it be sitting there in a contingency fund in case we need it? And should that amount be 3 million-dollar or should it be 2? There may be a $5 million issue that comes up, we may want state-of-the-art technology that costs 5 million bucks. We have to come up with $5 million. In my view we don't have the money sitting someone. We put on ourselves greater pressure to prove the need. And I think we should put on ourselves pressure to meet a deadline for what we want in the jail. This is an expensive proposition and I want to do the right thing and at -- every time there's a recommended change we have to -- on behalf of the people, evaluate public benefit. There may be some opportunities that we want to advantage of that will cost. I?m just saying that we realize today we have to pay for those. The question, though, is should we set aside money just in case that possibility occurs? Or should we be good public stewards and say when we make changes we pay for 'em. And I guess -- I guess --
>> judge I see your point. I pose the question to give us an example of three of those categories that he mentioned of course change -- on the changes something that would be expensive and maybe something that we couldn't really put our arms around. But I think somewhere, and I think you stated it in your earlier comments, somewhere along the line somebody is going to have to come back to -- to this court and tell us exactly what they want as far as the owner of it. I?m thinking basically -- I haven't heard that from I guess the sheriff's department as far as the design and a whole bunch of other things, I?m really not sold on a lot of stuff here. I?m really not. But I do think that I need to scrutinize it as much as possible for public benefit and make sure that the final product we are getting is -- is the least expensive to us, but also the quality that's -- that's necessary. So I?m really -- really want to press hard to make sure that happens. I guess my question is if -- if the sheriff -- I guess my question is like this, has the sheriff of those persons at the sheriff's department, have they been involved per se up to today's date as far as the overall design, looking at the -- at the 1336 beds and all of this other kind of stuff. This is the way that it's going to be. Da-da-da, maximum commitment security all of these other kind of concerns that's being brought up. You mentioned state-of-the-art technology. It changes. Okay. It changes. But then at the end of the day, somebody would have to make that call. So it won't be the -- the possibility of coming back for retrofitting type situations and we don't have the money. So I guess that's my question. Are the persons involved in it being hand carried and hand fed in this process to make sure that whatever the court end up deciding to do with this, that those particular I?s have been dotted and t's crossed, that that's my question.
>> the sheriff's office, Commissioner Davis has been very involved in the project. We have several representatives here, but their engineer at the sheriff's office, the head of -- of maintenance and mark -- mark stepeoff has been working very closely with ken in terms of review of all of the documents, all of the bridging documents where hok, with the design and with the negotiation of the contract.
>> all right. Okay. But I?m falling back to what -- what -- where the judge is going actually I think is where he's going. On some of the comments. Is that the fact of the matter that -- you even commented, sir, that we don't want this to look at this maybe as a slush fund or something that in contingency that we have set aside. Just in case. In other words I?m trying to get rid of that just in case type of scenario as much as possible and minimize it, mitigate it to the point where we will know exactly when we start tightening up the numbers, the numbers will be tight enough for us to really reveal what's really being held there instead of a contingency, possible slush fund as you even mentioned. He says, I said, but then again I don't really know.
>> all I can tell you, from my perspective, from my practice for over 25 years has been limited to public sector clients in the justice area. This client, the sheriff's department here, has been -- has been as involved or more involved than any other client that I?ve had an opportunity to work with. From the initial part of the scope of my project responsibility was to do -- to do all of the demographic study and needs assessment and program to determine how many beds the type and custody level of each of those beds should they be in dormitory, should then in multiple occupancy cells, single cells, that statistical analysis, of the sheriff's office worked closely and that determined the scope of the project. Then the design alternatives that we looked at from linear buildings to campus separated buildings, a number of options explored there in a preliminary planning way and tested. We went through two major --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> yes, sir.
>> are they include understand the negotiated contract price.
>> yes, sir.
>> two quick questions then. Are you recommending 3 or 4 and a half percent.
>> > my recommendation was 4.5%.
>> what's your recommendation today?
>> it would still be 4.5%.
>> is that low or high for your design build project?
>> I think that's pretty much where the market should be on a design build process.
>> ken, you recommend 3% or 4.5%?
>> I recommend 4.5.
>> roger?
>> roger has a different mind on that. All along I said 3%, I can make it 3%. But again I have to give to my team all of them saying 4.5%.
>> what did you say, repeat that.
>> I was saying along I was saying 3% will do because it's a contingency, for something unforeseen, we said all along that the only thing left on the table has changed over to -- it is an owner change and the sheriff worked with us all along, we said that there will be no owner changes -- no owner changes, that was my decision from 4.5 to 3%. Also there's another issue with it, I increased the 1.5%, moved it up into the r.f.p. When we presented the r.f.p. To the proposers, we put 59,000 -- 59 million as the budget for the design build for the construction costs. That's why the 4.5%, to 3% that I recommended 3% at that time. I still recommend 3%, but I want to yield to my
>> [indiscernible] on this one.
>> are we going to get to sign-off on anything that's above --
>> that's correct.
>> it doesn't make any difference if it's 20. It's going to come back to us, the court is going to be the one to make the decision on that. So the buck stops here. I mean --
>> I need to interject that the purchasing agent has the authority to mod this contract up to $50,000. Each contract mod. So -- so if you all want to waive that and have every mod come through you, I need to know that. Because I do have authority to increase it by $50,000 if the money is budgeted, by the court. So if you all want to do that a little bit differently --
>> if you are looking at $7 million on one hand, 8 on the other, the source of funding would the same, that's the issuance of co's.
>> that's correct.
>> assist we discussed previously judge, p.b.o.'s recommendation for this project would probably be to do a second issuance this summer. Whatever the number that the court decides to land on as the approved budget would -- would be issued at that time. Whether it be 7.8 million or 6.8 million. Additional.
>> well, my experience in government has been if there's an 8 million -- if there's $8 million there, we use $8 million. If there's $7 million there, we use 7 million. That's what -- that's my experience.
>> that is, that is correct.
>> I think that -- that we need to be steadfast, I mean, from the court to -- to make that -- to make that call. I mean,, you know, cyd if I were, I would say, you know, what, if it's 15 cents the court you all do it, you know, if that's what we really want to do with this. And I think that it may be pretty hard to move any of us if there's going to be a price, you know -- change.
>> david, I didn't mean to cut you off. I was trying to put some people on the hot seat while I was hot.
>> [laughter]
>> I think they have -- they have to weigh in on the contingency also.
>> david balagia, sheriff's office, if the question to me, the only layperson up here on the amount of the contingency, I?m the last person you should ask. The engineers and architects are the experts. But your argument is well taken, judge. We could -- we could representing the sheriff's office, I will say we can live with the 3%. We do need to come back to you if we found something that doesn't seem to fit or work. A couple of days ago I was going to say four and a half. Your argument is well taken. Lieutenant trevino and I were talking a second ago, one of the big concerns that we have for the new facility is our new radio system. We could get into the new facility and for some reason our new radio system have dead spots, whatever. That's something that's unforeseen, but we would have to come back and ask you all how to fix those kinds of things. So -- so I?ll say in -- mark will kick me on the way out, I will say we can live with the 3.
>> I have to say I would be remiss if I did not say I believe therement be some change orders in the disagreement between our bridging documents and what they perceive. I believe there will be a certain amount that we would --
>> more than $2 million.
>> I hope not.
>> I?m comfortable with me saying, $2 million is a whole lot of money even on the jail project. However, I can foresee circumstances that will force the five of us, persuade the five of that's we ought to do this. In which case we generate the money necessary to get it done.
>> I think we can do that, judge, but I think on change orders as well, though I mean that's why we did the citizens committee, that's why we do the planning ahead, to try to make sure that we have everything that we need in, the design -- the design deal so that we don't have these change orders. We forgot to put a window in. You know that kind of stuff that you should know ahead in terms of what you need in windows and doors. If it's an unforeseen thing that we really didn't know like you were talking about technology, something that just came on the scene at the last minute, that would improve the quality of the project, well, that's kind of like unforeseen, it's not an act of god. But it is unforeseen. And then we would have to weigh that. But change orders just because somebody forgot, you know, an entrance to an office, you know, that shouldn't happen.
>> well, as an example, let me give you an example of what we went through during the negotiation. We negotiated this over three months, just an example of what we are talking about is on the pharmacy design, the door was in the wrong place, that was something that we negotiated through the negotiation process. Worked it out. Cost and everything. Well, they are requesting to be -- there's going to be some of those issues come up that are going to cost us. My understanding is there's still some concerns about the roofing system. We want a roofing system, ed spoke to this, long-term, we are not doing maintenance every five years on it. There's going to be a few of those, I don't want to -- to whitewash this at all because I don't want to be coming back to you with a change order and you all saying you all told us there's not going to be any change orders.
>> what we tend to do I think on pat forgiones like that is that we don't do them when we construct the project. We come back and retrofit them. The medical examiner's office is a perfect example of how we tried to do something on the cheap and it came back and costs us so much more money because we had not put in the adequate resources. We can live within the 3%. But I think that that --
>> on the cheap.
>> -- what you do is you hope for the best, plan for the worst. It's a million dollars either one way or the other.
>> penny wise, pound foolish.
>> exactly.
>> when you all went off and negotiated the contract at the direction of the court, it was the contract on the facility that would serve our needs. I mean I didn't say don't come back with an amount over this. If the amount that we are about to contract for is insufficient, that's not the contingency, that's the contract amount. So I?m having a hard time thinking that if we had designed approximately one-half of it, landed on a contract amount, and on top of that added another -- stuff that is not in the contract, $4.5 million, right? Owner expenses above and beyond the contract, then two million on top of that, I mean that's -- that's 56 million plus another 7 or 8, had a -- at a 3% contingency, I don't hear us saying that we reject all change orders. But I just think that we have to review them prudently and if we need 'em, we need 'em. At the same time, though, I think that what we want to get up front is a design that gets us what we need. I mean, I -- comurt has been --
>> it's not -- 4.5 is not different from what we do with other projects.
>> judge, let me say this. The voters in November of 2005 authorized us to -- to approve this to -- to issue debt. A little more than
>> [indiscernible] to -- for all of this jail situation, that's all they gave us the option to do. All of these other things that we added to this are basically co, to the point of -- of $63 million, even though we are looking at a $65 million tag which is 63 after the co's have been looked at to be issued on this project. Now it's even beyond that, even beyond that when we look at the difference we are talking about. That in my mind was different -- really having bitten off into this thing, not 100%. It's going to be hard for me to bite off on this but a lot of other factors that still haven't even surfaced yet. I think that should surface. And so when we was talking about money, millions of dollars, millions of dollars is a big thing when you got a big debt service on it. Property taxes people pay here as far as debt service, yes, it is a big deal. With the co, the general obligation bonds, whichever. But bottom line is that -- is that I?m not convinced even here in the four and a half percent argument today with the 3% argument of contingency, a whole bunch of other things that -- that will escalate the cost of what we are doing here and the voters said hey we authorized you all to spend 23-5, that did go through the citizens bond committee, stuff like that. This is what we want you to do with the jail. So we are getting way beyond I think a lot of things. Like I say I?m really not too much sold on a lot of this. I?m not. So that's just my -- my 4.5% worth of talk.
>> I -- real quick, I ran back up here to just mention one thing, that cyd alluded to. If you all vote to -- to review every single change and somebody else with more expertise than I really needs to speak to this. That will affect this schedule. That will stop work.
>> will what?
>> is that correct?
>> yeah. It will delay a couple of weeks each time we have to come. I don't anticipate very many change orders. But I do anticipate some.
>> yeah, two million is 50,000 a pop. That's 40. Two million at 50,000 a top is 40 change orders. I don't know that we ought to have a change order process that delays the project, but it does seem to me one person shouldn't make the decision. We have too many facilities working with purchasing for small change orders could be just go ahead and get them done. That's what the contingency is for. Some of those I think, though, that are a little more significant should come to --
>> yeah, I think personally myself could determine what you all would be interested in and I?m sure roger could assist with I think we ought to take this one to court. This is a little odd. This is more than what we think should happen.
>> may I say something? If you would -- schedule. I think facilities management department is responsible to maintain the schedule and get the project under budget and we will do so. Some change orders might come. But they should not change the construction schedule at all. Because we have -- if a major change order comes along, we have plenty of time to work with purchasing and bring to the court. The schedule should not be delayed because of any change order unless it's a force majuer, act of god, different story. Any of this, we commit that to you. That we will make the project work and the schedule established about 18 months from the time of notice to proceed and move forward.
>> what we know from other projects is that if you mess around and get off schedule, you really suffer unforeseen costs. And pretty soon your budget is out of whack. So, you know, we ought to have steps in place that at least enable us to efficiently move from a to b and get the project done. One purpose of the -- of the design build contract is to turn the contractor loose to get the build -- to build the design, correct?
>> correct, design and build at the same time.
>> yeah.
>> well -- this doesn't get any easier over time. I have been hoping that it would over the last 30 minutes. We need a motion, though. I move that the 3% contingency.
>> I second.
>> and that is that -- is that b or a?
>> b.
>> that's b. Footnote that appropriate staff called to our attention that a contingency of four and a half might be needed.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners goals, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> judge, I?m going to abstain on this particular item and that is based on the fact that there is a lot of circumstances that I really need to flush out and even though I -- I argued for a reduction in the contingency which the court is apparently going to support, I argued in favor of this particular motion, however there is some -- still some circumstances that I need to get cleared up before I can vote to support this project. Thank you.
>> b.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> we would like to negotiate. This is to be negotiated as additional service on hourly basis. We would like to get more into detail on feg shages, which is best for us in terms of hiring hok. This has been in the scope in the original document. We would like hok to help us monitor the project in terms of the requirements. They will provide the design of personnel to make sure the science has been done according to the requirement of the bridging document, the rfp document, and also would like to have them with us during the construction as the representative on site in the construction services to be maintained full time to help us, help the county, my staff, communicate with the project manager and on item number c we will discuss the bond inspectors. Those are the personnel who will be monitoring the progress of the construction construction. So we have good resources to make sure the project will be done on time as far as representation, which is facility management. So I would like the court to give me the go ahead officially to start negotiating with hok. Just to let the court that we did in the spirit of that scope of work we have for our phase 5, we had the negotiation about a year ago not negotiation, a formal discussion on the cost. And we feel we can do it within our allocated budget. Thank you.
>> will we know exactly who from hok will be providing services?
>> it will be a combination of a number of people, in office people and full-time on-site people. We do not have the full-time on-site person identified yet. It was really contingent on the finalization of the schedule.
>> okay. So we anticipate that that will happen when? Finalizedfinally-- finalization of the schedule.
>> based on the court awards this contract by next Tuesday, a week from today, then the schedule has already been established. And I have a copy of it to show new a little bit when we get to that discussion.
>> in one of court contracts the high-powered executives negotiated the contract and in my view we were sent kind of low level employees. We ought to avoid that this time. We need to know at the time we execute the contract exactly who will be providing services, where , when.
>> their credentials.
>> at what cost and their credentials, right.
>> right.
>> and availability.
>> and I?m--
>> mr. Khourfy has given me some specific guidelines in terms of numbers of years of experience in the selection of that person.
>> I think the criteria that you pointed out can be incorporated in the contract.
>> might be comfortable with why I ought to be doing this with you versus some one else. The reason I?m asking why is because you all have had so much to do to date with the project.
>> right.
>> that I really don't want to have to, okay, we have the same people involved with this through the construction phase and in the event that something comes up where it's kind of like, hmm, I quite frankly think that may not be what we need to be doing, but given the fact that we are the guys that helped design it, I?m going to go. I know your defense will be we're reputable that we are not going to do it, but that would be at least.
>> certainly that will be part of my answerment there are several issues. There are a number of firms in the industry that whether they call themselves program managers or construction m?rtion, that essentially that the all they do they act as an owner's representative during the construction phase.
>> that's where I?m headed.
>> right. Right.. That's a viable alternative. And I would suggest, those firms represent the value of their service as a fresh pair of eyes that to some degree reduces the architect doing field inspections that may be covering up errors in his documents. That takes that off the table, and you've got a new third party balancing with the architect document and the builder document, which was at fault. In this case where we were only responsible for the bridging documents, I think that issue is off the table. The construction responsibility in terms of the architect's professional seal on a document, falls to the consultant that the design-builder brings to the table. So you have to weigh the value that my firm might bring from the three years of institutional knowledge about how the project was developed, why decisions were made to do it this way instead of that way, against that fresh pair of eyes point of view.
>> that probably outweighs--
>> one of the things, there is no learning curve. And the hours that I have put in in negotiations with ken and roger was based on having people, three component to what we are going to do. The first and maybe most important is the review of faulkner's design-build construction documents, the final stamped and sealed engineering documents. We know why we wanted certain things done certain ways. And our ability to say, yes, you know, we wanted a fole ger adams 1234, but they are suggesting a brinks 8020, I have an in house security guy. All he does is jail and prison locks and hardware and hollow metal. 40 hours a week, that's all he does. He sits on the national asdm committee that writes the standards for that equipment equipment. I think he is one of the three most knowledgeable people in the country. That's a value added that we bring to detention equipment at a jail, which is the whole reason to build a jail jail. So we don't have the learning curve. We have the in house expertise. Cliff sits right next to me. And we've got people that have been involved in the project all along that would be doing the in house support, the document evaluation. The second thing on the field, the full time on-site the issue there is that these people move from job to job, and to a large degree they move from company to company based on the availability of position position. And these are guys that are hired for a year, two years, three years, depending on the size of the construction construction. We've got 2,000 people in 23 offices around the country. There's a group of people in our construction services division that have been with hok for a long time. And my first choice is to get somebody that I?ve moved from a federal prison in been been--beenettes ville to Austin that's worked on h?rk ok justice projects in the past. We had a person identified when we thought the schedule was earlier. That person is now working on another job and is committed for the next two years. I?m going to try to get the full-time on-site person with experience within our organization. The way we do business and who reports to who and all of that is not a flexible option for me. Whoever does that job is going to do certain things in certain ways based on our policies and procedures. So I think there's some advantage of an enhanced potential of having that full-time person.
>> you got me. You got me. That's, I mean, that's a good response. You brought up a couple that is I didn't think of. That was good creative thinking.
>> cyd said she didn't want to whitewash anything. I want to throw a little whitewash. I think we are all concerned concerned. The judge raise the issue about the first 20 percent and second 25 percent. We have this 50 percent to go through. In the last seven months working with faulkner in term of going through the bridging documents to their proposal documents, we have actually reduced the price in the project 200,000. That would not have happened in a contentious relationship. This has been a very cooperative give and take of looking at value engineering cost reduction items and items that enhance the quality. I have every reason to believe that as we go into this next 50 percent, we will have that same relationship. So the experience to date on being able to control the cost, monitor the quality of the project, has been very good. And I would think it's going to continue in that direction.
>> so roger, the cost that we are looking at with the three quarters of the one percent fm administration cost with hok and facilities that includes the maximum cost of up to $384,000 with hok.
>> yes. The 384,000 that we need to bring back to the table because that was looked at about a year ago. But the total number right here, as you see, 0.75 percent for the construction costs, which is the five--
>> we always try to meet the budget.
>> to answer you, that's correct. It's within the budget. It's within the budget.
>> so you are talking about the 549,637?
>> no.
>> that was the '06 budget.
>> it's--
>> 492.
>> the 492,712.
>> yes.
>> 492,712. That's total amount.
>> that takes all of hok's and your needs for facilities.
>> those factors.
>> plus doesn't mean that we going to two to that maximum maximum. We have a lot of negotiation room with rok to bring that -- hok to bring that back to the table. But we are going to stay within the ceiling.
>> given the fact what the judge is talking b?rk we don't want some gratuitous presence from hok because, you know, when push comes to shove, not that you and ken aren't worth your salt, but the guys that I am really looking at is going to be ho hok to help us and make sure that we are getting what we need.
>> sure. Sure. Absolutely.
>> okay.
>> absolutely.
>> I know that, trying to negotiate maybe a contract, and not suggesting that we not do it, within that there has to be something that protects the county. I know that you are supposed to be overseeing our dents and stuff like that to make sure the design-build and everything goes accordingly. However, there are mistakes that can be made and there have been mistakes made. My point is how will those mistakes be compensated for if it's on your end and I guess that may be a part of the negotiated phase of whatever you get as far as the contract. I would like to make shoe that that is somewhere around because we have heard folks come right before this court, and I guess you all may have been a part of it, as far as when we look at some things before, some things that were left off or included earlier that maybe should have been, as far as the costs being higher. It's a lot of things that we'll be mindful of and watch out for. Like I say, I?m kind of skeptical about a lot of this, and I have my reasons. But anyway, I just wanted to make sure that whatever that is that the court decides to go with, and also in the format of a contract, there are petitions clauses in here in case you do make some mistakes. Thank you.
>> move that we authorize staff to negotiate an appropriate contract with ho hok.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. Show Commissioners Gomez, dougherty, yours trily voting in favor. Commissioner Davis.
>> abstain based on the same reason, I have some subject matter that needs to be addressed with this situation that
>> [ha-es]ant been addressed.
>> c, request for a bond funded project inspection in the facilities management department.
>> yes, sir. This item is to request a senior engineering inspector that's the official title, at a grade 15, at midpoint salary, and we're figuring about 25 percent benefits, for an annual salary of about $53,000. But we'd like to use this person for 18 months, which is a construction schedule. So an estimated amount for that would be about 79,135, so around $79,000.
>> move approval.
>> second. We'll see a job description for this ?
>> yes.
>> this is a source of funding, I take it is this.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> judge, I don't think you are qualified for bond funding. There's too much indirect there based on the job description. This has nothing to do with whether you need the person or not, the source of fundinging. It's our opinion that it does not qualify for bond.
>> just to add, I have exchanged e-mail to see if it was legal to bond fund it and I?ve been directed to bond counsel. I have not had a chance to talk to bond counsel. However, I knew the auditor auditor's offers had concerns about the funding. As far as the need, pbo, so you are away, has not done an analysis on this if it were to come from generally fund resources as well.
>> do we have a job description for this person?
>> we were sent something late yesterday from facilities.
>> move that we approve the position and basically await a decision on source of funding. And the it is not an appropriate bond funded position, that we take the amount from allocated reserve.
>> do I need to retract my first and your second.
>> that's friendlythat's friendly to me, yes --
>> that's friendly to me, yes.
>> I do think other dents ought to take a look at this this. If in the end it's not a appropriate position for bond funding, then the motion is allocated reserve.
>> yes.
>> roger, what we need basically is a bern to assist ken and hok representative to be on the project pretty much full time.
>> that's correct, 100 percent of his time or her time would be on the project on the site, assisting and monitoring quality assurance and helping ken, the project manager, and the hok representative on the site. Yes, sir.
>> so by approving the position, actually we go ahead and post it and delay, I guess we could post it and start receiving applications before we identify the source of funding.
>> with the direction of the court.
>> yeah.
>> one last comment about the inspector. We would like to have the inspector on board in may 2007. The reason of that, today is let's saw March 1. We have to post it and get somebody interested in the job and to hire is going to take about two months process. So maybe 2007 would like the inspector to be with us until October of '08. I send that to pbo. The reason behind that, we were going to finish in August of '08 but I would like to have that inspector two more months after we finish because we have the punch list items, the clos closout out out phase, so that's where the number of months comes from.
>> it would be the end of next year.
>> yeah, that's correct.
>> okay.
>> which is when the project is supposed to be completed.
>> correct.
>> that is if we get it started.
>> exactly.
>> you guys don't have your saw out there with you, do you? So you all can go.
>> is it the court's desire to approve the position with an end date of December 31, 2008? Is that what I am an understanding ?
>> unless we determine before then that it's not needed. I think that would be a good posting.
>> what would the responsibility be for this person? What would they do ?
>> excuse me ?
>> what would this person do do? What's their responsibility ?
>> the responsibility of that person, and just briefly, is going to be monitoring the progress of the construction of the project, document the construction as it goes, as far as like equipment personnel, something like that. That's what we do on that. And then make sure that the quality assurance, that the contractor is doing according to the plan, and that project inspector doesn't change anything whatsoever on the plan. Respond to the project manager for any paperwork need to happen, go inspect certain items. Basically is a quality assurance issues. And we have a whole list of, in the human resource division, called senior engineering inspectors, list lists the essential elements that person is supposed to do.
>> I guess, we have never dealt, I mean Travis County, this is I think the first time that we have ever had to deal with a project such as a design billed, especially on the vertical end of stuff. I guess whatever takes place you know, I just think we need to, at some time we may be in waters that we haven't explored with this type of concept. But again, I just wanted to make sure that whatever that person is doing has some knowledge of a lot of things that we end up doing here.
>> absolutely.
>> but anyway.
>> project inspector, Commissioners, are essential to the success of any project. I had it on all my park projects, the inspectors are there all the time, while the project manager is not there all the tile. Tile--all the time. They can see and hear and report to project manager. It's a very critical position to be on site full time.
>> is it then the court's desire to direct pbo to do an automatic from the allocated reserve for the portion that falls in fy '07 and to add just the target from general fund resources from fy '08 for this position ?
>> I think we cannot bond fund it.
>> we will not be able to bond fund. If the auditor says it is not bond fundel, it's not a consumable. It will not pass legal muster. I?ll be happen to check.
>> we need to hear from bond counsel. If there is agreement, I don't know that I would say auto hatic, but it ought to be on a Tuesday agenda tor budget transfer. To post the position will take a couple months to fill anyway, right ?
>> that's correct.
>> let him post the position to terminate December 31 of '09 ?
>> of '08.
>> of '08. Unless we determine before that date that the person's work has been done.
>> that will give us time to come during the fy '09 budget cycle, is what it would be, and present that case if we needed them to go along.
>> the spirit of this is that we need the position.
>> that's correct.
>> so if allocated reserve has to be tapped.
>> we will bring it back to court.
>> yeah. And if we make that determination next couple three weeks, we are still in good shape. Anymore discussion? All if in favor. Show Commissioners Gomez, dougherty, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis voting against.
>> abstaining.
>> abstaining.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:20 AM